Skip to content

JMBW Fall 2009

November 13, 2009

Below are the contents to the Fall 2009 JBMW from CBMW

Item Title Author
Editorial Denny Burk
Odds & Ends JBMW
Sorry, President Carter … This Argument Falls Flat R. Albert Mohler Jr.
You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby Mary A. Kassian
Raising Girls to be Godly Women in a Confused and Conflicted Culture Nina Fry
The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12: A Rejoinder to Philip B.Payne Andreas J. Köstenberger
“Son of Man” or “Human Beings”?: Hebrews 2:5-9 and a Response to Craig Blomberg Barry Joslin
The Means, Mandates, and Motivation for Biblical Womanhood (Titus 2:4-5) Eric M. Shumacher
Whence Evangelical Feminism?: A Review of Pamela D. H. Cochran, Evangelical Feminism Mark Rogers
Finally Unconvinced: A Review of John G. Stackhouse Jr., Finally Feminist Robert E. Sagers
New Paradigms or Old Fissures?: A Review of Mark Husbands and Timoty Larsen, eds., Women, Ministry and the Gospel Jared M. Compton
Where Faith and Life Meet: A Review of Carolyn McCulley, Radical Womanhood Candi Finch
Costly Tolerance: A Review of R. Albert Mohler Jr., Desire and Deceit Timothy Shaun Price
New Testament Theology and a Biblical View of Gender Christopher W. Cowan
Annotated Bibliography for Gender-Related Books in 2008
6 Comments leave one →
  1. Sue permalink
    November 14, 2009 12:18 am

    Mary Kassian writes,

    “- Only 30 percent of all women were employed outside of the home in 1960, and many of those worked part-time only. Very rarely was a woman professionally employed if her children were younger than school age.
    – Children were highly desired, highly valued, and highly welcomed additions to both family and community.
    – There was no birth control pill.
    – Abortion was illegal.
    – Pornography, rape, homosexuality, sexual perversion, sexual addiction, and sexually transmitted diseases were uncommon and rarely encountered.”

    Mary Kassian writes as if the 1950’s were a paradise. Does she mention that from 1928 until 1972, it was legal to sterilize the “mentally deficient” in her home province.

    Many children whose parents could not support them, were incarcerated, and possibly molested, labeled mentally deficient, and sterilized.

    This was legal from 1928 to 1972 in Alberta, Canada. Why does Kassian not address this.

    These children often had mothers who were single, unmarried or widowed, or an ill husband. It was tragic.

    It seems a small price to pay to allow women to work so this does not happen to children now.

  2. Sue permalink
    November 21, 2009 11:17 pm


    Can you ask Schreiner if he really meant to say this, or if this is a misunderstanding of the reviewer in the JWMW referenced in your post,

    “Schreiner argues that, according to Paul, women can serve as deacons but not as elders/overseers. The diaconal ministry is a supportive role, but the “qualifications for pastoral ministry include being apt to teach and the ability to lead (1 Tim 3:2; 5:17; Titus 1:9)—the very two activities prohibited for women according to 1 Tim 2:12” (774). Thus, the new age inaugurated by Christ “clarifies that men and women are equal in Christ” but “did not signal an abolition of all role distinctions” (776).”

    Does Schreiner really write that women are not apt to teach or able to lead. I am surprised because this would mean that the nation of the United States should remove all women from teaching positions.

    Or, is it alright to assign women to teach children at their most receptive stage, when they have the highest capacity to learn, but it is not alright for women to teach adults?

    Schreiner has been found to be say that women lack some intellectual critical capacities that men have, but I would like to know where Schreiner finds this in the Bible, or has he been given special insight by the Spirit.

    Clearly Schreiner’s thesis is that women are not to be elders because they are not apt to teach or able to lead. This is what the reviewer says.

    So Schreiner teaches the essential and ontological subordination of women, that they are not able to lead.

    Why does CBMW spend so much time claiming that they teach the ontological equality of men and women?

    What do you think? Do you really think that a woman could not teach you exegesis?

  3. Sue permalink
    November 21, 2009 11:19 pm

    Or perhaps he thinks that God does not intend for women to function according to their ontological strengths in the church, but they may do so in the world.

    • jbstarke permalink*
      November 22, 2009 12:13 pm

      I think you should read Schreiner’s book. Its good and helpful. This is not a CBMW book. It is a New Testament theology book in which gender is miniscule. Schreiner is right, women are not apt to teach and have authority in a way an elder is gifted in the church. It has nothing to do with the value or worth of the person, simply the good design of God for men and women in his Church. This does not mean women have the ability to teach at all, its the peculiar design of teaching and have authority in the church.

  4. Sue permalink
    November 22, 2009 7:18 pm

    I am not sure if you mean that women are not designed to teach a subject in the physical church, or if you mean that women are designed to teach classical Greek but not Koine Greek.

    Did God design these two language varieties so differently that a woman could teach one and not the other, or is it that a woman can teach non-Christian students Greek but she can’t teach Christian students Greek.

    Did God design women so that they function better out of church, than they function in church. That must be what you mean. You mean that women have full function as adults and teachers outside of church, but inside church God has built a certain dysfunction or impairment into women, so that they cannot function in church as they function in secular society.

    But Schreiner says that women don’t have the critical faculties that men have. Do you think this is true, that women are basically lacking in certain capacities, and that this only shows up in church?

  5. Sue permalink
    November 22, 2009 7:19 pm

    Given this teaching, perhaps God did not intend women to become Christians because women are diminished by Christianity, since they function more poorly as Christians than as non-Christians. Something about becoming a Christian is against God’s design for women.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: